Would Not Having the Weather Channel Make People Less Safe?

Given the Weather Channel’s reputation for occasional attention-seeking that includes unnecessarily naming storms and focusing on fun Internet articles instead of providing useful meteorological information, you have to wonder about the station’s new strategy in resolving a dispute with DirecTV. The Weather Channel’s contract with the satellite provider expires Monday if a new deal is not reached. So, ahead of its appearance at the Television Critics Association conference, the Weather Channel launched a campaign to urge viewers to “contact their congressional reps to intervene [in the matter] or else DirecTV would take away ‘its critical weather programming,’” causing a “public safety issue.” (There’s also a whole website dedicated to theeffort.)

When asked whether it is fair to “declare [the Weather Channel] a public utility,” network head David Clark replied, “Absolutely. And I’m not kidding. If you’ve ever been in a severe weather situation and you need to make a decision to protect your family and you need to make it fast” you need “to know your information comes from a trusted source.” (And by “trusted source,” he probably did not mean a channel called WeatherNation, which has apparently been appearing right next to Weather Channel on DirecTV’s line-up in recent weeks.) But if Clark really wants to keep his 20 million DirectTV viewers, he might want to remind them that the Weather Channel is the one that employs SamChampion.